2025 Ohio 1448
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- S.M. filed a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) petition against her neighbor, T.G., alleging incidents causing fear for her and her boyfriend's safety.
- The trial court granted an ex parte CSPO and, after a hearing, issued a three-year protection order against T.G.
- S.M. alleged multiple incidents, including repeated feces and a dead bird in her yard, T.G. allegedly fondling himself while facing her home-security camera, and slow-driving by T.G. past her house.
- No direct evidence connected T.G. to the feces or the dead bird incidents; S.M. admitted she never saw him place anything and that police did not charge T.G. with any crime.
- The trial court ruled the fondling and an alleged "gesture" from a distance constituted a pattern of conduct justifying the CSPO.
- On appeal, T.G. challenged whether the evidence met the legal standard to support issuing a CSPO under Ohio law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a "pattern of conduct"? | Multiple incidents (fondling, gesture) met standard. | Only one clear incident; no conduct pattern shown. | No pattern established; reversed. |
| Did T.G. act "knowingly"? | Conduct caused S.M. to feel fear/mental distress. | No evidence T.G. intended to cause fear or distress. | Knowingly element not met. |
| Was the evidence sufficient? | Provided photos, videos, and testimony of discomfort. | Record lacked credible/sufficient evidence for CSPO. | Evidence insufficient; order reversed |
| Standard of appellate review | Deference to trial court’s findings warranted. | De novo review for sufficiency of the evidence required. | Sufficient, credible evidence needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1997) (establishes preponderance of the evidence standard for protection orders and appellate review should focus on sufficiency of the evidence, not abuse of discretion)